Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed a false designation-of-origin claim under the federal Lanham Act in a “Buck Rogers” trademark dispute, but allowed the plaintiff to proceed with a trademark dilution claim under the federal statute. The Dille Family Trust v. The Nowlan Family Trust, 15-6231.
In 1942, to settle litigation between them, the widow of Buck Rogers creator Philip Francis Nowlan assigned intellectual property rights, including “Buck Rogers” trademarks, to the John F. Dille Co., for whose National Newspaper Service the late Nowlan had come up with the Rogers character. But the Dille and Nowlan trusts nevertheless have battled for years over Buck Rogers trademark rights.
The Dille Trust currently claims that a Nowlan Trust agent pitched a Buck Rogers pilot script and series character “bible” to the Sy-Fy Network. As to the Dille Trust's false designation of origin claim under '43(a) of the Lanham Act, Pennsylvania federal District Judge Wendy Beetlestone found “to the extent that Plaintiff alleges that Defendant marketed the script and series bible as discrete products to Sy-Fy and other networks, these items constitute 'tangible products sold in the marketplace,' and therefore qualify as 'goods' under the Lanham Act.” But Judge Beetlestone added “future movies or television series are neither 'tangible,' nor 'sold in the marketplace' because they do not yet exist as discrete products. Plaintiff cannot overcome the hypothetical nature of these products by basing its claim on the 'rights' to produce them because ' intangible rights are specifically excluded from the purview of the Lanham Act.”
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?